The Writer's Strike: What residuals really are:

This Huffington Post column explains exactly what residuals are, and why the are not a 'bonus'.

Please support our Union Brothers and Sisters!



When something is making money - shouldn't everyone involved in the process - especially those who provide the most essential ingredient in the pie, get a slice?!

It should be understood that writers are not making money hand over fist. I also think if they write a $200 million movie they should as least get as much as the other above the line people.

hours on Christmas) for 2 straight years getting a script in (research, rewrites,maybe even do the storyboards). That means living in a corner looking at a computer screen for over 700 days. You forget what you used to do before you started the project, you give up social life, family life, reading, watching movies, gardening, etc. You end up making under minimum wage for the hours you work, while actors get millions for reciting your lines. The finished product is the payoff. (if you live to see it); you wouldn't give up the work you do because you love it, but it would be nice to be paid for it. Residuals make that possible.:rant:

Screw people on the front end and on the back end. Years and years ago, the State of Oregon was in a financial crunch (unlike today, when we have all the money we need, want, or could possibly dream of - heh), and the state employees union said, "Okay, we'll give up the wage increases we negotiated last year, but we want something in return, and that's your promise of a pension." The State, strapped, said okay in order to reduce its current and near-term payroll obligations and keep services going. Funding a pension was a lot cheaper to begin with.

You can all see the punchline, can't you? After the budget crisis passed, and some of those workers who had given up an extra $50 a month retired, the negotiators for the State began moaning about all those "greedy" state employees and their heueueuge pensions. And, of course, there are all sorts of dimwits whining about this negotiated benefit who wonder why those fatcat state employees get a pension anyway. "I don't get a pension from my job at Burgerville!" Yeah and why is that, Sparky?

I am an author. My author friends get an advance, which is money against sales. If they don't sell out the print run, they have to return the corresponding percentage of the advance. Plus, most authors in my genre make fifty cents a paperback. Those same paperbacks sell for $7.99 apiece.

If there is no writing, there is no project. I support the strike. Those who write movies, teleplays and other projects deserve to be paid fairly for their work.

Julie

And not just a little bit, either.

Still, I support the union, and am all for whatever anyone can earn.

The producers do and yes, their decisions often suck and ruin what could be a great show.

for quite some time now. I cut them almost no slack. Once in a great while there is a glimmer of great writing talent on display.

And still, I support them in their effort to achieve a better financial future for themselves.

If you are convinced that you have writing talent, please be sure and get an agent and submit an idea. It is more than difficult to sustain a career as a working writer.

Julie

that makes no sense at all to me. "We take far less than our labor is demonstrably potentially worth on the understanding that most shows fail because we like what we do."

.... money is being made. A lot of money. And we can argue about that, too. But the fact is, the writers (and other union and guild people in the entertainment industry, are the unsung heroes. The backbone. The essence. They absolutely deserve to share in the fruit of their labor.

Management will say the writers got paid when they got that first paycheck. Work for pay. The ownership of the work product goes to he who paid for it.

Bullshit.

Writing is an art form, not a work product.

Because BOTH SIDES talk past each other and ultimately lie about the underlying argument.

No one is saying that the writer's shouldn't get residuals at all. NO ONE! The question really at hand is HOW THE RESIDUSALS WILL BE CALCULATED and in which mediums they should be available.

Both sides are currently (at least from reports and what little information I have received from friends semi-involved in the process) proposing unacceptable solutions.

There is a lot of "old world" vs "new world" going on right now and in reality, no one is sure how things will progress, so the contract should reflect that. Let me explain.

In the "old world" when a show failed, it died.

Enter the new world. Shows that fail even after only 1 season are sometimes released on DVD and can wind up becomming sucessful from that stream (e.g. Futurama) In the current agreements as I remember them, the writers do not collect any additional money for this new revenue stream... That is absolutely wrong and they should collect money from this new stream. From what I have read and understand, the writers want a flat residual calculation not at all dependent on the success of the show. This becomes VERY problematic, because often these DVD's are offered at deep discount prices to try and make up for the loss of the show, so a full season of a failed show might sell for $19.99 or 29.99 as a DVD, whereas a popular show can demand $39.99 - 49.99.

Should the writer be paid identical residuals for both shows?


Similar problems with the internet. Some shows are sold via itunes and do quite well. Some shows are reshown with commercials. Some shows are streamed with no commercials, just to try and gather interest in the show and generate no direct revenue.

Should each of these streams be treated equally for the purpose of residuals?

Producers are looking for instant hits these days. They've already targeted shows to pull after just 2-3 airings. No longer do they allow a show time to attract an audience.

The problem is that almost every show has some people "for it" and some people "against it". In 2-3 airings, if the show hasn't caught on, the people who were "against it" suddenly gain a lot more power.

Under Hollywood accounting, nothing ever turns a profit. Studios are huge fans of carrying over losses on other projects onto the balance sheets of successful films.

"Net profits" are worthless in Hollywood. They don't exist. Any promise made on "we'll see how much money we make" is dishonest and bad faith.

Which is why I am saying that BOTH sides are being inherently dishonest at this time and talking past each other, which is what is leading to this strike.

If you sit down and examine the standard movie contract and know something about contract law, you can figure out that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for a movie to make money, because the contract accounts for more than 100% of the money... which means the bigger the hit, the bigger the loss. Recording contracts do this as well as I believe they STILL contain provisions for "broken records" which don't exist anymore.

The writers 100% ABSOLUTELY deserve residuals for ANY playing of their material that generates ANY MONEY for the studio/network/producer. (Even if that money doesn't cover the costs).

HOWEVER, the reality is that residuals do need to be scaled in some fundamental way to account for the different types of distribution and possibilities.

One side needs to present a reasonable plan to the other, explain it and stand on it, instead of continuing to spit rhetoric that the other side can easily debunk.

A flat fee then a royalty percentage (on gross, not net revenues) would seem to be a fair and easily enough program. The flat fee guarentees that a writer gets some pay for a script that the studio buys, even if it gets mucked in production (bad actors, script adjustments, or just never slotted/produced). Royalties begin with the first dollar coming back to the studio. This is the system books are published on, it should work with scripts.

The key is making it attractive to writers to submit, attractive to producers to buy, and fair to both when the project either fails or finds success.

taking less now in paycheck form, in order to get a better pension or retireee health care..until Big Biddnis comes along and say's "we're broke"..Thanks for all that extra money you let us keep for all those decades..sorry you're sick..but we're bailing..good luck to y'all..suckers!"

So, if I buy a car today and it turns out to be an absolute collectors item in 20 years and the value increases to a brazillion times its current value, would the engineers be entitled to "residuals"?

that residual.